Larimer County considers limiting prospecting!, county commissioner with screwed up priorities Options

[Scratch60]

This story appeared on 9 news.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/300505/1...-on-county-land
Can you say "slippery slope"?

[jjs1978]

I emailed back asking if they were taking public comments, he replied

"Yes they will take comment here is a link to the agenda

http://larimer.org/bcc/121218/adminmatters.htm "

But according to the agenda it is tomorrow morning; and I will not be able to attend to make any comments :-(

Here is the relevant info from the agenda link:

"Type of Meeting: Administrative Matters
Name of requestor: Gary Buffington, Director
Department: Natural Resources
Preferred appearance date: 12/18/2012 Time required: 15
Date decision needed: 12/18/2012

Objective: 2013 Regulation Approval for Public Lands managed by Natural Resources

Situation: There are regulations that pertain to the operation and management of public access areas within Larimer County that the Department of Natural Resources manages in their Parks and Open Lands Programs. Each year the regulations are reviewed by staff and changes are sometimes recommended to meet the needs of the over 1.5 million visitors to these areas annually. Regulations can be both deleted or added each year. The Board of County Commissioners approved the exisiting set of regulations for the 2012 operating season approximatley a year ago.

Proposal: There are three additional regulations that the staff has recommended for inclusion into the 2013 Regulations. These additional regulations were presented to the Parks Advisory Board and they have recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners. The three regulations pertain to the removal of minerals from parks and open lands managed by the department, equestrian camping at Hermit Park Open Space and food storage in campgrounds.

Advantages: The recommended regulation for equestrian camping at Hermit Park is directly associated with the establishment of a new equestrian campground that will meet the needs of campers that want to utilize their horses on designated equestrian trails in and adjacent to public lands near Hermit Park. The recommended regulation pertaining to food storage in campgrounds, relates to all of our campgrounds and was established to protect our campers from attracting animals to their campsite. The major danger would be the attraction of bears to the campsite. The third recommended regulation is adding the word "mineral" to an existing regulation that would prohibit the taking of minerals from our parks and open lands unless someone had an approved mining claim. We do not think that the County owns the mineral rights on most of the properties that we manage, therefore we think that it would not be appropriate to allow the public to take those minerals. We have received concerned comments from people that like to "gold pan" in the Big Thompson and Poudre rivers regarding the prohibition of taking gold from the rivers. The regulation would pertain to all of our properties but specifically to Lions Open Space, Eagles Nest Open Space and River Bluffs Open Space on the Poudre River and four parks on the Big Thompson River where our rangers have noticed an increase in operations associated with gold extraction sometimes to a commercial level.

Disadvantages: Visitors that want to gold pan on parks and open spaces near rivers that are managed by Larimer County.

Requested action: To approve the recommended 2013 regulations for public lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources.

Potentially Affected Interest: Visitors to Larimer County Parks and Open Spaces, and staff.

Level of Public Interest and Participations: High

Audio/Visual/Computer Needs: n/a"

[swizz]

"We do not think that the County owns the mineral rights on most of the properties that we manage, therefore we think that it would not be appropriate to allow the public to take those minerals."

This is the part that people fail to understand and it sounds pretty damn clear to me (quoted above). They state: "....we think that it would not be appropriate to allow the public to take those minerals".
That is an understatement. A more factual statement would read: "it would be ILLEGAL to allow the public to take those minerals".
Dan has already pointed this out a few posts up.
It is unlawful for them to allow/permit prospecting or other mineral-removal related activities on property they manage but DO NOT own the mineral rights to. Hypothetically... they could even own the property and STILL not own the mineral rights. Mineral rights are often a separate deal.
If they do not own the mineral rights.... they have no authority to allow mineral extraction. PERIOD
There should be no argument of "rights" in this issue. The only entity that has "rights" in the matter are any existing claim owners and/or the one(s) holding the deeds for mineral rights on those properties. Mineral rights, claims, and deeds don't come easy and usually not cheap. These are the rights that should be respected. They (managing agency, DNR?) state that they do not think that the County is in possession of the mineral rights.
The DNR is the managing agency in this case and also not the holder of the mineral rights deeds. I'm assuming this from the previous post. The mineral rights holder(s) remaining unnamed or unidentified. I am also assuming that the County owns the rec lands, parks in discussion.... that makes them private property, not public owned land. They either own the mineral rights or not... somebody does. The mineral rights owner has every right to regulate or disallow mineral extraction. The landowner (County) can allow or disallow any legal recreational activities they wish... but only the mineral rights owner can dictate "recreational" mineral removal activities and must be in agreement with the landowner (County) I'm sure. I only say "recreational" because it is taking place in a designated recreational area(s). It is indeed private property and not on publicly owned land like most BLM and NFS managed lands which are protected by and subject to the Mining Laws of 1872.

mini-rant....
"Recreational prospectors" should collectively pull their heads out of their ashes and take the time to learn that there are no RIGHTS to take minerals from someone who owns the mineral rights on a managed private property designated for public recreation.... which is what these parks and recreational areas are - MANAGED PRIVATE PROPERTIES used for approved public recreation activities. They (County and/or mineral rights owner in this case) can make up any rules they want, it's well within their rights. They (DNR or other management agency) can't "approve" mineral extraction as a recreational activity if they don't own the mineral rights or even own the land. They can only enforce what the landowner (County) and/or mineral rights owner in this case decrees. In this case perhaps the mineral rights owner has had enough.... kinda like Cache Creek which I believe is also a designated recreational area, same concept but thankfully they have not shut it down completely. Any real prospector or miner worth their salt (self included) will always be sided with the mineral rights owner... myself strongly so since I also own mineral rights. It's the law of the land, so to speak (well, one anyway). Hopefully this makes sense to all the Chicken Littles who think the sky is falling, it's not. Maybe some of these recreational folk will actually venture into the mountains and learn to exercise their real prospecting rights legally on BLM and NFS managed public lands rather than constantly subject themselves to the rules of recreational areas, parks, "open spaces", etc. Parks and rec areas are nice convenience but there's really no 'need' to subject one's self to additional rules, regulations, and permitting to have a good day. There is a LOT of virgin ground outside of the parks and rec areas here in Colorado just begging to be tapped which we have the right to explore for minerals and even stake claims. The real treasure is in the hunt.
Like what we constantly preach and teach here.
end mini-rant.

If people are ok with the rules of recreational areas I think it can be a great weekend rec activity and convenient place to go and a great place to get started. I totally get that and also prospect these areas on occasion... and I abide by their rules. I know it's a 'privilege' to be 'allowed' to prospect on those properties. Folks should understand that there are no "rights" relevant to prospecting/mining on privately owned properties (as these areas are)... just "privileges" which are subject to rules, possible permits, and in this case maybe disallow it altogether which I agree is sad. It's all up to the owner(s) of the mineral rights as well as the landowner(s) with these parks or rec areas. Might want to think about finding the mineral rights owner(s) and bake a nice apple pie or something rather than makin a big fuss to the management agency or landowner. But the landowner might need some butterin' up also.
Clear?